TAZ and Socialism, compatible?

The group Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) borrowed an idea from Hakim Bey called the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) and implemented it as part of their philosophy. According to BANA, the perfect form of nationalism comes from self-sufficient collectives. Is this compatible with the theories of the Socialist Phalanx? I love my family and friends, and I don't see why any authority outside of them matters. I don't want to sound like a cosmopolitan here, but I don't think there should be nations and that nations are not even necessary for nationalism. What are your thoughts guys?

The Socialist Phalanx is a pluralistic forum that embraces divergent theories, so long as they do not undermine the parameters of revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism. Therefore I do not find that there is necessarily any sort of ideological incompatibility between said parameters and such constructs as 'Temporary Autonomous Zones'. However, I am curious as to what you mean by the "self-sufficient" aspect of such collectives. (I can only foresee such quantitatively insignificant entities functioning in a manner that is entirely self-sufficient if they assume the character of some debased, retrograde expression of communism. That's hardly the sort of improvement over capitalism that revolutionary socialists aspire to.)

With respect to your point regarding nationalism, I think its validity is entirely contingent upon how you are choosing to define the nation. If by 'nation' you are referring to the nation-state, I would agree that such constructs are not a necessary component of a nationalistic ideology. However, I cannot see how any nationalistic ideology can logically exclude the nation if such is defined as a self-consciously distinct community of people that share qualities that are in turn associated with such an identity.

Finally, I should note that I personally regard BANA as a reactionary organization. I am also rather skeptical of National Anarchism, based upon various questions that have arisen through my research of the ideology. However, the general policy here is to withhold judgement when it comes to individuals coming from such backgrounds and to let their personal opinions dictate how they will be regarded by the forum.

no-maps wrote:The group Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA) borrowed an idea from Hakim Bey called the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) and implemented it as part of their philosophy. According to BANA, the perfect form of nationalism comes from self-sufficient collectives. Is this compatible with the theories of the Socialist Phalanx? I love my family and friends, and I don't see why any authority outside of them matters. I don't want to sound like a cosmopolitan here, but I don't think there should be nations and that nations are not even necessary for nationalism. What are your thoughts guys?

BANA is an organization following a confused ideology, so I wouldn't take anything they write too seriously. They employ the term "anarchism" to describe their views, while espousing a reactionary, hierarchical, tribal philosophy. Anarchism, for all its faults, at least seeks the dismantlement of capitalism and the construction of socialism; BANA couldn't care less about issues pertaining to economic justice.

No modern industrial society can function while individuals are divided into self-sufficient communes, such a doctrine would plunge humanity back into the Middle Ages. While I appreciate that you value your friends and family most in life (as everyone does), the fact of the matter is, organizational structures which extend beyond our personal lives are necessary for a modern society to function. The only question is: How are these governmental and economic institutions to be structured? Revolutionary socialists advocate on behalf of self-management—the principle that individuals should have a say in decisions in proportion to the degree they're affected by them.

Putting aside Hakim Bey's rather repugnant personal history, I find no value in the Temporary Autonomous Zone theory. Genuine social change has always, and will always, arise as a result of mass movements.

Thank you for your responses. I'm not here to believe one thing or another, or to argue for or against any position, but to learn. I hope that my questions and statements are taken in the light they're intended, as problems to be worked through and answered for the betterment of those who work.

I don't know what you mean by retrograde. I assume what you mean is that Revolutionary Syndicalists do not support the anarcho-primitivist movement, or the interpretations of Marx that find Primitive Communism to be a preferred state, and an opposition to accumulation.

I imagine this is also a resistance to Council Communism, in which syndicates are a form of TAZ (specifically National Autonomous Zone of BANA, or NAZ). When I say self-sufficient I mean it in an idealistic manner, that the state is really a union of distinct soviets. The relief of this idealism is the practicality of the USSR as an oppressive regime without democracy in any form. Self-sufficiency is a relationship with production in which gens are capable of producing their own means without the necessity of a wage.

I am defining a nation as one of these syndicates as its own individual collective.

As a tribe, shouldn't the council have the license to organize itself and abide by its own laws? Are you implying that industrial society can not function on terms of worker self-management? At the same time you seem to advocate self-management in combination with a regulating state. I'm not suggesting that all labor should be only for subsistence, but that the alienation of employment must come to an end. People are alienated from the need to possess their own goods, and they work in order to increase the possessions of the capitalist. People are also alienated to the license of creating their own culture by the undue weight of state regulation.

I don't know what you mean by retrograde. I assume what you mean is that Revolutionary Syndicalists do not support the anarcho-primitivist movement, or the interpretations of Marx that find Primitive Communism to be a preferred state, and an opposition to accumulation.

What I mean by retrograde communism is essentially a form of primitivism comparable to the primitive communism that Marx and Engels elaborated upon.

Now, according to my understanding — which I acknowledge may be imperfect, — neither Marx nor Engels argued that a return to primitive communism was progressive or even preferable to the status quo. Therefore, barring any evidence to the contrary, I must conclude that any interpretation of Marxism that holds primitivism to represent a solution to capitalism to be fallacious. Of course, some may very well interpret primitive communism, as defined by Marx, to be preferable to capitalism. However, such a position fails to correspond with the respective views of most Marxists and socialists on this question (revolutionary syndicalists are in no way unique amongst socialists in their opposition to primitivism).

I imagine this is also a resistance to Council Communism, in which syndicates are a form of TAZ (specifically National Autonomous Zone of BANA, or NAZ).

You are assuming way too much and may be in danger of constructing a false dichotomy. My criticism of the TAZ was based on the assumption that it would require a regressive material framework in order to function in a "self-sufficient" capacity — not that it would democratize production or provide autonomy to communities formed on a voluntary basis.

When I say self-sufficient I mean it in an idealistic manner, that the state is really a union of distinct soviets. The relief of this idealism is the practicality of the USSR as an oppressive regime without democracy in any form. Self-sufficiency is a relationship with production in which gens are capable of producing their own means without the necessity of a wage.

Well, now I can clearly see that there is a significant misunderstanding underpinning this discussion. You see, I interpreted the "self-sufficient" aspect of these syndicates to mean that they would be small autonomous entities, functioning on an autarkic (rather than cooperative) basis. If you are merely describing a construct that is based upon the independence and voluntary federation of labor, then withdraw my prior objections.

I am defining a nation as one of these syndicates as its own individual collective.

As a tribe, shouldn't the council have the license to organize itself and abide by its own laws?

Certainly, if we are in fact presupposing a governing framework that is bound to basic socialist principles. (I would not recognize the legitimacy of any social entity that subjugated parts of its population or threatened another.)

Are you implying that industrial society can not function on terms of worker self-management?

Of course not. I was suggesting that an industrial society could not exist in an autarkic organizational structure that, among other things, lacked an adequate population level. (Again, that was what I understood the "self-sufficient" aspect of the TAZ to represent.) Clearly, an autonomous community that did not isolate itself economically would be capable of maintaining an industrial component on the basis of worker self-management.

At the same time you seem to advocate self-management in combination with a regulating state. I'm not suggesting that all labor should be only for subsistence, but that the alienation of employment must come to an end. People are alienated from the need to possess their own goods, and they work in order to increase the possessions of the capitalist. People are also alienated to the license of creating their own culture by the undue weight of state regulation.

You may have to elaborate more on this point. (I have never favored any sort of state-imposed cultural hegemony, if that is what you mean.)

no-maps wrote:I don't know what you mean by retrograde. I assume what you mean is that Revolutionary Syndicalists do not support the anarcho-primitivist movement, or the interpretations of Marx that find Primitive Communism to be a preferred state

Correct.

I imagine this is also a resistance to Council Communism, in which syndicates are a form of TAZ (specifically National Autonomous Zone of BANA, or NAZ).

I'm not opposed to council communism per se. I judge every theory of socialism and communism according to how well it can adjust itself to the self-determination of nations—which I consider to be an integral competent of any post-capitalist society. I've not studied council communism thoroughly enough to determine whether or not it's a system I feel is feasible.

As for TAZ theory and it's relationship with council communism, I was under the impression that Temporary Autonomous Zones were merely a political tactic which Bey theorized would best be capable of ushering in anarchism. I didn't realize that Hakim Bey or BANA developed the theory to the point of it being its own system of production, distribution, and governance.

When I say self-sufficient I mean it in an idealistic manner, that the state is really a union of distinct soviets.

Like the Admin, I thought you had meant "self-sufficient" in the economic sense of the term (see 'autarky').

Left-wing nationalists, like myself, envision a future consisting of self-determined socialist nations freely cooperating with one another. I'm not sure how well this vision conforms with your own.

Self-sufficiency is a relationship with production in which gens are capable of producing their own means without the necessity of a wage.

If self-sufficiency, as you define it, is synonymous with worker self-management and the abolition of wage labor, consider me an advocate.

As a tribe, shouldn't the council have the license to organize itself and abide by its own laws?

Certainly.

Are you implying that industrial society can not function on terms of worker self-management?

On the contrary, I believe worker self-management is the only just way to organize production.

At the same time you seem to advocate self-management in combination with a regulating state.

Some formal body is necessary to maintain the conditions by which a socialist mode of production functions. Just as capitalism requires a state to enforce contracts, protect property rights, and immerse the population in a culture conducive to bourgeois social relations; socialism will require some entity capable of ensuring wage labor and black markets, for example, aren't allowed to undermine the system. Unlike the more idealistic anarchists, I don't believe that once capitalism is abolished, humanity will spontaneously organize along socialistic lines, without need of a governmental entity to ensure that exploitative social relations don't reassert themselves.

I'm not suggesting that all labor should be only for subsistence, but that the alienation of employment must come to an end.

The majority of this forum completely agrees with you on the need to end alienation.